Originally posted by YukonKid
How have my second amendment rights been infringed upon Webley? I hunt more than ever, I have purchased more guns this year than any other, I do not see weapons going away.
Well you have to pay a special tax and get a government permission slip to own a full auto or carry a handgun. Of course, if you live in Illinois or Wisconsin you can't carry a handgun at all and if you live in Vermont or Alaska you only need the permission slip for full auto. If we all went along believing that our 2nd Amendment rights weren't being infringed, I suspect we would be seeing quite a lot more guns going away.
You know Crash, I think that the percent of crime carried out with automatic weapons would increase if there were less restrictions on them Thats just my logic though, it seems to make sense that there are not many used in crimes because there are not that many around.
Actually, it's quite probable that their restriction has little or no bearing on their use in crimes. So-called "Assault Weapons" were banned or severely regulated for 10 years and it had very little effect on their use in crimes (which was and remains quite low). Also, it is not at all hard to illegally modify a semi-automatic weapon to make it fully automatic yet we still don't see full-autos being used in crimes very much. Could it be not because they're regulated, but because very few fully-automatic weapons are easily concealable
and controllable?
P.S. personally, I can afford an automatic weapon, but I do not see any point in doing so. I see no need for one, nor a practical use. I am not a soldier or a cop or overly paranoid. I have never heard a logical argument presented by anyone as to why they need a fully automatic weapon.
Honestly, I don't have a great desire for one either. But why should we have to demonstrate a need in order to own something? Do you really need a television? Wouldn't a radio suffice? Just because I don't need something doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to have it.
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
No sir, you are missing the point. Potential danger is not the issue. Inherent danger is. Guns are designed to kill, therefore they are inherently dangerous to human and perhaps some animal life. Pesticides are inherently dangerous to bugs etc. Guns are regulated because of their inherent danger and that danger must be balanced against the public good even though we have a right to possess some of them.
What does the purpose of their design have to do with anything? A properly functioning gun is not dangerous in the least unless someone operates it, period. Many things are used for purposes they weren't originally designed for. Whether or not a firearm is designed to kill
is irrelevant. A properly functioning firearm presents absolutely no danger to the public good unless misused.
You must not be a lawyer either. I see no strict scrutiny criteria applied in your argument other than "well, I know I am safe and won't hurt anybody intetionally so I should have them". Where is the scrutiny there? That is nothing more than your opinion which has no more weight than mine. Sorry, you lose and the NFA is still in effect.
No, I'm not a lawyer nor do I claim to be. Are you a lawyer? If you are can you prove it or is it just a claim made anonymously on the internet? Where in any of my posts have I ever even used the term "strict scrutiny?" When I started the thread, I posted this
Just how far does the government have a right to regulate the posession and/or use of arms? My view is this, the government does have an extremely limited right to do so. Basically, I think it's OK to limit the rights of those who have violent criminal histories, chronically abuse drugs or alcohol (i.e. multiple offences), and those who have been demonstrated to be mentally unstable to the point of being a danger to themselves and/or others. I also think that it's reasonable to strictly regulate and/or prohibit weapons that are extremely difficult or impossible to handle/posess/operate safely such as chemical, biological, and nuclear materials as well as certain types (though certainly not all) of explosives. Beyond that, shall not be infringed seems pretty clear to me. I am interested to hear everyone's views on this subject.
Of course you're gong to see a lot of opinions here. I asked for them. I have given my opinion and the reasoning behind it.
I hear you but you are wrong IMHO. The american people don't want unregulated machine guns and grenade launchers or the NFA would be repealed. Even the NRA won't take it on. Educate them all you want but I think most of them think and I agree that other than a hobby curio type of thing they should be closely regulated more so than weapons common to civilian ownership.
Nor do I want unregulated guns of any sort as I've made clear numerous times. However, unless a person is barred from owning any type of gun in the first place, I've yet to see exactly why you or I should have to pay a tax stamp and register with the federal government in order to own something that we can both own and operate responsibly and safely.
Again your opinion, I disagree but the SCOTUS opinion is the only one that matters.
SCOTUS was once of the opinion that a slave could not sue his master for freedom upon relocation from a slave state to a free one. Just because it was SCOTUS that held the opinion, did that make it right? SCOTUS is made up of people who are like all the rest of us imperfect and not immune to faults or mistakes.
Who says you have to use it? You are arguing the right to have it. Some types of modern nerve gas isn't hard to store and if it is a non-persistent type won't spread beyond the immediate area it is deposited in. Anyway, based on yoour previous statement you are looking to use these things against an invading army so at that point who cares how it operates?
Well, in that case, if you want to make the law that you can own a suitcase nuke or non-persistent nerve gas but never, ever use it go ahead. I doubt you'll have many law-abiding people spending very large amounts of their money for something that they cannot use. However, if you made the law that way, the criminal element could acquire these weapons much more easily because after all you wouldn't need government security clearance to access something available to the general public would you. I think we've already ascertained that unless you want to destroy all semi-automatic firearms outside of police and military hands that you simply won't be able to keep full-autos out of the hands of properly motivated criminals, but a nuclear device or nerve gas isn't so easily fabricated (nor are the methods to fabricate many of them even public knowledge). If you were to use a nuclear device or nerve gas against an invading army, exactly how where would you use it that wouldn't put the lives of innocent people around them in danger?
Look at it this way: I think most people would find it unreasonable to ban a gasoline generator but would still take issue with you building your own nuclear reactor. But wait, they're both designed with the same goal in mind and can both be operated safely with enough money and equipment. Does this mean that it's reasonable to subject a gasoline generator to the same regulation and restrictions as a nuclear reactor?
Accept what we have in common and fight together with us on what we can win.
Just because something is not popular or unlikely doesn't mean it isn't worth fighting for. Slavery was fought for nearly a hundred years and it's end seemed impossible at one point in time, did that make it not worth fighting for?
Quote:
by your logic many things that are not "inherently dangerous",because they werent "designed to kill",are in fact far more dangerous in real terms,than items which are "inherently dangerous".
Such as? And how are you measuring that?
Nitroglycerin is extremely dangerous if not handled with extreme care but it wasn't designed to kill (it was designed as a mining and construction tool).
Should we regulate guns like we do cars?
Do cars have a constitutional amendment protecting them?